b v nagarathna

Constitutional courts should be extremely reluctant to alter religious practices, a nine-judge Supreme Court bench cautioned. Only the will of the people, expressed through elected representatives in Parliament and assemblies, can bring about reforms in religious customs. The court emphasized that it's impossible to scrutinize every religious practice.

A rationalist group presented a novel argument in the Supreme Court. They stated Article 25 of the Constitution permits individuals to change their religious affiliation throughout the day. This interpretation sparked debate among the judges. The court considered the implications of such freedom on religious practices and traditions. The discussion highlighted the balance between individual conscience and established religious customs.

The Centre argued before the Supreme Court that Article 25(1) on religious freedom doesn't mandate gender equality, as Articles 15 and 16 already prohibit sex discrimination. It urged courts to avoid interfering in religious practices, stating only the legislature can enact social reforms through broad discussions. The bench reserved its verdict.

Advocating a hands-off approach for courts in religious matters, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that social reform can only be undertaken by the legislature

The latest judgment faulted two earlier rulings, holding them inconsistent with the landmark February 1, 2021 verdict by a three-judge bench of Justices N V Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, which ruled that UAPA’s stringent bail conditions cannot be “used as the sole metric for denial of bail”

A Supreme Court bench has said that a woman’s choice needs to put first in all cases where she is seeking an abortion beyond the limit specified by law

The Supreme Court urged the Centre to consider amending laws to allow rape survivors to terminate pregnancies beyond 20 weeks, emphasizing no time limit in such cases. The bench highlighted the lifelong trauma for a child survivor and the need for the decision to rest with the survivor and her parents, with AIIMS offering counsel.

The Supreme Court, while hearing a case on gender discrimination in temples, cautioned against relying on information from 'WhatsApp University.' A nine-judge bench, led by the Chief Justice, emphasized that while eminent authors' views are respected, personal opinions are not sufficient for judicial decisions. The court acknowledged the difficulty in defining essential religious practices.

'Parents' Word Will Be Final On 30-Week MTP'